Bombay HC restrains media from making false claims about late Rajesh Khanna's bungalow

The Bombay High Court has restrained media outlets and platforms from publishing or circulating false content about late actor Rajesh Khanna’s former bungalow, Ashirwad [Shashi Kiran Shetty v. ScoopWhoop Media Pvt Ltd.] 

Justice Arif S Doctor passed the order on July 24 after noting that material published by certain media outlets appeared to be prima facie defamatory and infringing the privacy and dignity of the current bungalow owner.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by the current owner, businessman Shashi Kiran Shetty, against Scoopwhoop Media Pvt Ltd and several other entities. 

After going through the articles and videos from publishers including Scoopwhoop, NDTV, Indiadotcom and others, Justice Doctor held that the material was clearly defamatory.

“The material, in my prima facie view is clearly defamatory of Shetty so as to suggest that the Plaintiff lives in a haunted and so called cursed bungalow. Furthermore, it would also clearly impinge upon the Shetty’s right to live peacefully and in dignity,” the judge observed. 

According to the plea, Shetty had purchased Ashirwad, demolished the existing structure and built a new residence for his family, while retaining the iconic name ‘Ashirwad’ associated with Khanna.

Shetty complained of numerous articles and videos that continued to describe Ashirwad in a defamatory manner, often linking the property to supposed misfortune befalling three Bollywood stars who had lived there. 

He argued that these portrayals had no factual basis and caused reputational harm to him and his family.

Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for Shetty, argued that the material amounted to defamation and malicious falsehood. 

He submitted that the damage went beyond reputation and violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to live with dignity and to be free from “the indignity of false portrayals in the public domain”.

Saraf also alleged invasion of privacy, stating that one of the defendants had engaged in unauthorised photography and videography of the bungalow using zoom lenses and recording devices. 

The Court was informed that Shetty had issued takedown notices in January and February 2026 to the defendant, including Scoopwhoop Media and intermediaries Google and Meta. However, except for one publisher, the notices were not complied with.

In the interim application, he sought a temporary injunction restraining defendants from publishing, printing or disseminating any material. He also sought a mandatory direction to take down and remove all publications hosted at URLs listed in the application.

During the hearing, the counsel for Rajshri Entertainment (one of the defendants) informed the Court that a contested YouTube video had been removed, and undertook that it would be taken down completely if still accessible. 

Saraf then stated he would not press the suit against Rajshri.

The Court noted that none of the other respondents had appeared or attempted to justify the content despite service of the proceedings. 

“In my prima facie view, clearly such publications would be wholly unjustified and in the nature of creating sensationalism, at the cost of Shetty and for no fault of Shetty,” the order stated while granting interim relief to Shetty.

The matter will be heard next on August 21.

Saraf was briefed by team of advocates Vaibhav Charalwal, Athira TS, Sukrit Kapoor, Vipul Makwana and Aman Singhani from King Stubb and Kasiva for Shetty.

Advocates Manek Kalyaniwalla and Harshal Damania appeared for Rajshri Entertainment.

[Read Order]